Sunday, August 30, 2009

I'm considering reading Wiker's book, in which he lists fifteen books that he thinks created or spread poisonous ideologies that have only harmed humanity. Here are those books with what appears to be (at a very quick glance) Wiker's primary critique.

1. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. The author advocated that leaders divorce themselves from moral standards.

32 comments:

First, I'd take off Utilitarianism. JSM's counter-argument to the debasement objection is pretty sound. I'm not a utilitarian by any means, but I'd place Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals above Mills (though not necessarily Bentham). Also, Kant's just flat out boring.

I'd also suggest the works of Ayn Rand -- if you want to be a libertarian, fine, but I don't believe that self-interest should be the driving force behind any morality. Again, libertarianism is fine by me, but objectivism seems to be the most unethical post-Nietzsche philosophy I've seen.

I don't know what I'd add to the list, but seeing "Utilitarianism" is a bit odd. To those that told Mills that his was a "pig's philosophy," Mills responded with something along the lines of "how sad for you, that you only know the kind of pleasures that a pig could experience." Spiritual growth, a loving family, intellectual pursuits, freedom, and the like all would rank pretty high on Mills' list of "pleasures." Hard to see how that screwed up the world.

Oh, and I loved "The Myth of Sisyphus," The Stranger and The Fall. The Plague was so/so.

It probably doesn't belong on a list of top ten books that screwed up the world, but Michael Crichton's preachy "State of Fear," is just awful. Awful fiction, questionable science and awful philosophy.

I'm having trouble thinking of any that could possibly be rightly called "screw up the world"-worthy.

I certainly don't think Marx's book belongs on it. It hasn't screwed up the world and there's some truth in it, along with some less helpful ideology.

I certainly don't think Marx's book belongs on it. It hasn't screwed up the world and there's some truth in it, along with some less helpful ideology.

Well, maybe not the entire world, but it did horrendous damage to Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, just to name a few places.

Another thought on rocksalive777's comment:

Rand may have advocated an excessive selfishness, but I see it as the logical extension of the concept of human rights. If everyone else is worthy of respect, dignity, and non-interference, then so is the individual thinking that. Rand flipped the Golden Rule around to say "Treat yourself as you treat others." It is perhaps an incomplete ethic, but it's not too shabby.

Rand's point, in as much as I have read of her, was that the individual does not exist to serve the desires of the collective -- or anyone else. The individual is sovereign. For those taught that they existed to be slaves, that's a liberating voice.

Well, maybe not the entire world, but it did horrendous damage to Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, just to name a few places.

I'm not especially familiar with Marx, having only read bits of his stuff, not the whole thing, so take this for what it's worth. It seems to me that the problem with the places you mention was fascism, not communism. I don't believe Marx was endorsing fascism.

Nicaragua was communist in the 1980s and they weren't fascist (if anything, the US actions towards Nicaragua come closer to being fascist - illegal bombings, support of overthrows of a democratically elected gov't, terrorism - but we're not saying that capitalism leads to fascism, are we?).

Other nations have been socialist without being fascist. Sweden, for instance. France, in part.

It would be an interesting question to consider: What has made so many of the communist/socialist nations "go fascist"? My suspicion would be that it has more to do with the particular nations' histories leading up to that point in time. But perhaps there is something in the tenets of communism that helps in that regards. I'm not sure what that would be, though.

Just the dictionary definitions (allowing that in the real world things happen differently...)

Communism:

a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Socialism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Communism: a variety of fascism founded on the principles of central economic control by Karl Marx.

Socialism: a moderate form of Marxism in which the state has substantial, but not total, economic control.

I generally use the term fascism and totalitarianism interchangeably. This may be an incorrect practice, since fascism might be seen as a subset of totalitarianism founded upon racial or ethnic premises.

Well, those are fine definitions, John, I guess, but I guess you also know that they are not in common usage?

That is, if you are presuming that communism is a "variety of fascism" and you speak to someone from communist Nicaragua (who was there back in the day), they will wonder what in the hell you mean, since that's not what they experienced and it's not how the word is actually defined.

I'd suggest, as a rule, it's probably good form to stick to standard definitions commonly in usage. Otherwise, it leads to too much confusion...

I mean, can you imagine someone from Nicaragua referring to capitalism as a form of fascism? They might have some basis for doing so, based on their real world experience, but it would not be the case.

I think you know this, John, but for others who may not have read much from me: It's not the case that I'm pro-communism or socialism. Of the known economic systems, I think a rightly structured capitalism is the best, most moral choice of all the flawed human economic structures.

I believe in a strong locally-based capitalism, along with reasonable regulations to protect against the flaws of capitalism.

I just too often see communism associated de facto with fascism, as if you can't embrace one without the other. I don't think that's the case, at least not how it's defined and how it has some times historically been enacted. However, again historically, given the tendency for at least some communist/socialist nations to swing towards oppressive fascist behaviors, I think that they need to be balanced with a healthy dose of democracy and freedom, just as capitalist systems need to be balanced with a healthy dose of regulation, done reasonably.

I think it's a difficult balancing act, either way. In the end, though, I land on the capitalist side, with caveats.

I also tend to land capitalist, but often the capitalist vs socialist/communist argument hits me as though we've chosen the two of the most corrupting influences known to man - money and political power - and we're busy arguing over which one should be used to counter the problems caused by the other. Maybe we should recognize that both have problems and look elsewhere for solutions?

Well, those are fine definitions, John, I guess, but I guess you also know that they are not in common usage?

I strongly dispute this.

I generally do not use the term "fascist" since it is popularly thought to be right-wing extremism. Jonah Goldberg has made a lot of money by arguing that fascism is a product of the Left. I have not read his book and so am not sure of the validity of his arguments. But because of this ambiguity, I prefer the term "totalitarian" to refer to governments, Left or Right, that dominate the lives of their citizens.

But I do not think that my definition of Communism can be seriously, historically, challenged. It has always been totalitarian, and it has always been derivative of Marx.

I just too often see communism associated de facto with fascism, as if you can't embrace one without the other.

Please name examples of self-identifying Communist governments that have not been totalitarian.

My understanding of "communism" corresponds with the entry at wikipedia, which says...

In classical Marxism, communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have "withered away" and therefore "communist state" is a contradiction in terms under premises of this theory.

I don't believe there have been or are any "states" that would meet the definition of communism, as written by Marx. Again, I'm not an expert, I could be wrong. That's my understanding.

Certainly, though, there have been socialist nations that weren't totalitarian. Sweden and Nicaragua, for instance.

It's just not a full-blown world state, as we've come to know it, but there are certainly now and have been throughout history pockets of the kingdom of God scattered about. The Amish, the mennonites, the hutterites, many other segments of the Kingdom have been part of the real world. But, as in Marx's ultimate plan, just not part of a political state, but more a state of being.

1. Marx would not have endorsed totalitarian (read oppressive) states.

2. There have been no true communist states.

That people read Marx and employ oppression as a means of supposedly implementing Marxist ideas does not impress me as being a strike against Marx, any more than someone reading the Bible and employing oppressive actions as a means of implementing biblical ideas is a a strike against the Bible or Christianity or Judaism.

So, are you saying the Bible/God should be held accountable for the Crusades and all the wingnuts who've engaged in violence for the "glory of the Lord and to uphold the teachings of the Bible" all these years?

Hi my loves! I just wanted to let you in one of Lamar’s favorite basketball performance secrets. He wears a power balance bracelet and he never plays without it. power balance bracelet is

Performance technology that has helped him with his balance and endurance this season. It has taken him to a whole new level when he plays, but it affects

everyone differently. It’s not just for athletes, Rob wears one too! Lamar has it in all different colors — you can see him wearing his yellow one in the second pic in the gallery. Here’s me wearing a black one :) Click through the